conecting switches together

Dr Zoidberg · 27 Feb 2009 at 15:25

In a current set up we have two banks of switches on oposite sides of the site,
These banks are connected by two cat5e cables running at 10/100 (due to switches), all the switches are unmanaged and so the two connections just operate on there own,

I am adding a 10/100/1000 managed switch at each end and the two cables connecting each bank are one of the things that will be moved to these switches.

My question is will i be better setting it up as it is now with two independant connections, or trunking these two connections together between the swiches?

If i trunk them and one of the cables goes down does the 2nd keep working on its own or does it bring the trunk down?

Thanks
Keith

oddjob62 · 27 Feb 2009 at 15:42

Dr Zoidberg said:
In a current set up we have two banks of switches on oposite sides of the site,
These banks are connected by two cat5e cables running at 10/100 (due to switches), all the switches are unmanaged and so the two connections just operate on there own,

I am adding a 10/100/1000 managed switch at each end and the two cables connecting each bank are one of the things that will be moved to these switches.

My question is will i be better setting it up as it is now with two independant connections, or trunking these two connections together between the swiches?

If i trunk them and one of the cables goes down does the 2nd keep working on its own or does it bring the trunk down?

Thanks
Keith

If they are basic unmanged switches, connecting with 2 cables will cause a switching loop (v bad)

Skidilliplop · 27 Feb 2009 at 16:01

IF you're using two connections you need to set up a load balancing trunk.
You could use STP to create a redundant link but trunked links give you more throughput.

oddjob62 · 27 Feb 2009 at 16:13

Skidilliplop said:
IF you're using two connections you need to set up a load balancing trunk.
You could use STP to create a redundant link but trunked links give you more throughput.

You'd need a managed switch at both ends to combine the links. I think as Skidilliplop says, a redundant like with STP (or similar) is the only option if one end is unmanaged

Skidilliplop · 27 Feb 2009 at 16:14

I am adding a 10/100/1000 managed switch at each end and the two cables connecting each bank are one of the things that will be moved to these switches.

^^

oddjob62 · 27 Feb 2009 at 17:19

Skidilliplop said:
^^

I wasn't sure if he meant ManSw - UnmanSw - ManSw.

FatRakoon · 27 Feb 2009 at 17:29

At one time, I ran my 4 port router, to one PC and to one switch.

On that switch was 3 PCs and 2 orther switches...

This meant that I had 3 switches and one router and I never had any issues at all.

At one time, just before this, I had all 3 switches connected to ports 2,3 and 4 on my Router, with my main PC connected to port 1

Again, this gave me no trouble at all.

oddjob62 · 27 Feb 2009 at 17:35

FatRakoon said:
Again, this gave me no trouble at all.

It's not an issue of how many switches you have, more whether you have loops in your network.

Dr Zoidberg · 27 Feb 2009 at 17:47

oddjob62 said:
It's not an issue of how many switches you have, more whether you have loops in your network.

We do currently have loops :eek:

And that is another point that will be corrected when these knew switches are added.

It is a new managed switch at the head of each bank (each end of the site)

So i am looking to trunk 2 connectiosn between them

Then take our current swithces and connect each to the new switch,
Currently they are daisy chained, 6 in the main comms room, 3 in the other area, This was nothing to do with me but is now up to me to improve.

oddjob62 · 27 Feb 2009 at 18:09

Could you do a rough diagram of the current/proposed setup. Would make it easier for us to suggest improvements.

Rich · 27 Feb 2009 at 18:39

If it were Cisco switches I would port channel between the 2 new managed switches. This means you can have several ports all combined for aggregate bandwidth and resilience.

Dr Zoidberg · 28 Feb 2009 at 14:00

oddjob62 said:
Could you do a rough diagram of the current/proposed setup. Would make it easier for us to suggest improvements.

Hows this ?

Red = server
Blue= current 10/100 unmanaged procurve switch
Yellow = New 10/100/1000 managed procurve switch

Top 6 switches and all servers in main comms room
Bottom 3 switches on other side of site

Picture 1 - current setup,

Picture 2 - What i plan to do

Currently the servers are attached via 2 100mbit connections in loadbalance / failover. i have shown them all connected to one switch at present but that might not be the case, a couple could be on the 2nd switch.

I plan to put the new switches in and connect all the servers to it, giving load balanced / failover over 2 gigabit connections.

Then also connect all 6 current switches in comms room to the new switch, doing away with the current daisychain.

2nd new switch goes at other side of site, connecting all 3 swithces to it, doing away with daisy chain here as well.

Finally the 2 100mbit connections from random switchs linking the two areas will be connected to both the new switches, and trunked,
So replacing 2 X 100mbit connections with a trunked 2gigabit connection.

Also i need to start doing this while the network is in use, it is going to be a few weeks before i get a chance to do what i need with out it in use,
with the servers ocnnected with failover i assume i can disconnect one of the cables with out causing a problem? so i can then plug it into the new switch, let it come up, then do the other?